Minnesota court approves warrantless urine collection in DWI case

In the United States, the protection of citizen’s rights in the legal process is invaluable. We are given the benefit of the doubt that we are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, we are provided a multitude of rights that protect us from being treated as “criminals.”

We have the right against being subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, a point that certainly applies to cases of suspected drunk driving.  However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently made a ruling that limits DWI suspects’ Fourth Amendment rights in an investigation.

In the past, Intoxilyzer results were evidence that went far in solidifying convictions against drunk driving defendants in Minnesota and throughout the country. More recently, however, the accuracy of those tests has been a point of controversy due to flaw in the Intoxilyzer source code, which the State and the manufacturer refused to turn over for years, tying up the courts with endless litigation for a long time. Courts found flaws in the breathalyzer devices, which left prosecutors with less evidence to work with when pursuing drunk driving charges.

In 2009, an officer suspected a woman of driving under the influence and, therefore, pulled her over to investigate the situation. Knowing that a breath test wasn’t necessarily going to prove reliable in court, the officer decided that he had a right to collect a urine sample from the DWI suspect.

Minnesota is an implied consent state. When it came to urine samples, however, the scope of implied consent was somewhat ambiguous. The state’s appeals court recently ruled that the officer was in the right to require a urine sample from the suspect.

If he had waited for a warrant before getting the sample, the suspect’s sample might have failed to show the driver’s level of alleged intoxication at the time when she was pulled over. That scientific detail inspired the appeals court to conclude that there was an “exigent circumstance” that made it legal for the officer to collect the urine sample, even without a search warrant, in a DWI case.

As a result of the ruling, the female defendant’s drunk driving conviction was affirmed. This ruling sets a precedent for future Minnesota DWI/DUI cases, making it easier for law enforcement to collect urine samples from suspects. What do you think about the court’s decision? Does it violate suspects’ rights?

Source

theNewspaper.com: “Minnesota: Appeals Court Expands DUI Implied Consent Reach,” 8 Jul. 2011

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.